Would this lens work on the af100

[fyrsiege23]

I'm new to the boards and I'm curious if anyone knows if this lens will work with an adapter for the af100 with out vignetteing.

http://www.cameramate.com/product_info.php?products_id=6200&osCsid=35a64006ea812d11160536b4f1b23632

Thanks in advance

[Ticheli]

I'm not a lens guy, but I believe that lens is designed for 16MM and probably will not cover the larger 4/3 frame.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

[bgundu]

Not gonna work :(

[Homunculus]

is this c mount? if so will probably vignette but I thought af100 may have that option that crops vignettes out so it's possible to work or no?

[Barry_Green]

I've got one of those. Well, two, actually, I have that version and the later version. One in CP mount, one in Arri Bayonet.

No possible way will this do any useful coverage on an AF100. Maybe on a GH2 using the sensor-crop extended-tele mode.

Somebody find me an Arri Bayonet to PL adapter ring, or a CP->m43, and I'll mount it on there and show you the results. I can find Arri Standard to PL, and Arri Standard to m43, but I can't find Arri Bayonet to PL or Arri Bayonet to m43...

[PaPa]

wow, i almost crapped when i saw 2.8 10-100mm Zeiss! Then 16mm was mention, that was shattered.

[Barry_Green]

wow, i almost crapped when i saw 2.8 10-100mm Zeiss! Then 16mm was mention, that was shattered.
Yeah, and it's not really all that special of a lens either... and doesn't cover Super16. They came with kits when I bought some 16mm cameras off ebay. By all accounts the Cooke zoom is better.

But, hey, I've got 'em, so if someone wants a test I'll be glad to show it. Maybe when I get a GH2 it'd be fun to play with in ETC mode. Just need to source the appropriate adapters somewhere.

[Homunculus]

hey barry how much is a decent 16mm cam off ebay and how much are the rolls of decent stock for it? I was just researching 35mm rolls seems vision2 is is about 80$ for 400' roll and 25-30$ for 100f.

[PaPa]

that's about right.

I remember buying 16mm at 100' kodak vision 2 for around 40 dollars. In fact I still have some in my freezer. Wonder if that stuff is still good after all this time...

[Homunculus]

wow. in your freezer? why

[PaPa]

that was the way we were told to store before using it if it won't be used for a while.

I think because it's organic, it decomposes very very slightly and the chemicals start reacting. Apparently it affects the silver nitrate as well, so freezing it just slows down any chemical reaction...

It's been a while so I could be completely, but I think the idea is similar.

[Barry_Green]

hey barry how much is a decent 16mm cam off ebay and how much are the rolls of decent stock for it?Depends on what you mean by decent. :D

To me the minimum decent camera is the CP16/R, it's quiet enough to shoot sound on, it's a reflex viewfinder, and it's battery powered and even has variable frame rates. You can usually get a kit for under $1,000. But they can't easily be converted to S16, and when the electronics go, you're hosed (although apparently Optical Electro House has some sort of replacement board for a grand that can get a blown CP up and running again).

I just picked up a GSMO, the next generation of the CP16, which is substantially improved in a few ways (such as having quick-change mags, and this one is converted to Ultra16). I think I kind of stole it, it was $1250 and included the very rare Angenieux 5.9mm wide lens. Even so, it's still a CP with potentially fiddly electronics. In fact, on this one it looks like the electronics already have been replaced.

If you want a solid, good, modern 16mm/S16mm camera, look at the Arri SRII or the Aaton lines. Eclairs can be pretty good depending on which one you get, avoid the ACL1 but the ACL2 is pretty good. Pricing is all over the board because film just isn't in demand anymore. In fact, I very very very nearly bought a BL4, a full-blown production 35mm sync-sound quiet full-hog system with two 1000-ft mags and two 400' mags. It went for $8,000. Insane. Absolutely insane. That's the cost of an EX3, but we're talking about a "real" professional awesome 35mm movie camera, recently serviced by Visual Products! Here's what's sad though -- there were 42 bids on it. And that means that there were 41 of us who thought long and hard and said ... no, I think $8,000 is too much. Isn't that ridiculous? I mean, that thing was probably well over $100,000 when new. And now VP's giving it away for the cost of an EX3... crazy times.

[Homunculus]

ah ok. you probably right I just don't know much about it. would lov to shoot on 16mm sometime next year. let's say I want to shoot 10 minute short how much do ya'll figure of film on average I would shoot? if it gets cut down to 10 min, do you think I'll actually shoot let's say 30-40 min of film (due to bad takes, etc, etc, etc) or more like 20 min or what? Just trying to calculate how much film would cost.
70$ for vision 2 400' equals a bit over 4 minutes of film so I reckon for 40 minutes it will be about 10 400' rolls which would be about $700 which isn't too bad at all... now how much does it $$$ to develop that is the question

[PaPa]

100 feet is about 3 minutes. I think 400 feet is around 10. - 16mm

[Homunculus]

Depends on what you mean by decent. :D

To me the minimum decent camera is the CP16/R, it's quiet enough to shoot sound on, it's a reflex viewfinder, and it's battery powered and even has variable frame rates. You can usually get a kit for under $1,000. But they can't easily be converted to S16, and when the electronics go, you're hosed (although apparently Optical Electro House has some sort of replacement board for a grand that can get a blown CP up and running again).

I just picked up a GSMO, the next generation of the CP16, which is substantially improved in a few ways (such as having quick-change mags, and this one is converted to Ultra16). I think I kind of stole it, it was $1250 and included the very rare Angenieux 5.9mm wide lens. Even so, it's still a CP with potentially fiddly electronics. In fact, on this one it looks like the electronics already have been replaced.

If you want a solid, good, modern 16mm/S16mm camera, look at the Arri SRII or the Aaton lines. Eclairs can be pretty good depending on which one you get, avoid the ACL1 but the ACL2 is pretty good. Pricing is all over the board because film just isn't in demand anymore. In fact, I very very very nearly bought a BL4, a full-blown production 35mm sync-sound quiet full-hog system with two 1000-ft mags and two 400' mags. It went for $8,000. Insane. Absolutely insane. That's the cost of an EX3, but we're talking about a "real" professional awesome 35mm movie camera, recently serviced by Visual Products! Here's what's sad though -- there were 42 bids on it. And that means that there were 41 of us who thought long and hard and said ... no, I think $8,000 is too much. Isn't that ridiculous? I mean, that thing was probably well over $100,000 when new. And now VP's giving it away for the cost of an EX3... crazy times.
wow yes that is insane. a pro 35mm for same price as EX3?? doesn't even compare. I would snag it if I could even though I never shot on film in my life. jeez. next year when I get more money (recouping after af100 lol) I want to buy a 16mm cam and shoot film for the first time as I awnt to shoot a short on film after first improving my skill with AF100. I'm just not good enough yet to attempt film

[Homunculus]

100 feet is about 3 minutes. I think 400 feet is around 10. - 16mm

ah damn! you're right i was using 35mm calculations! wow that's even better amazing prices that's half price wow

[Homunculus]

how much to develop 16mm let's say 5 or 7 400 foot rolls??

[PaPa]

couple hundred, then you're probably going to want a digital transfer?

[Homunculus]

couple hundred, then you're probably going to want a digital transfer?

hold on now hold your horses, let's not go that far! i know a little bit about THOSE prices and they are astronomical !

[Homunculus]

well unless you do 2k scan instead of 4k scan perhaps...but even 2k is expensive I think!

[Barry_Green]

let's say I want to shoot 10 minute short how much do ya'll figure of film on average I would shoot?Well, that's where the concept of the "shooting ratio" comes into play. That's the ratio of film you shoot, to the total running time of the finished product. So if you wanted a 10-minute short, and you shot sixty minutes of film to get that 10-minute short, then that'd be a 6:1 ratio. And that's a misunderstood concept... folks seem to think that shooting at a 6:1 ratio means you get six takes of every setup, and that's way not right. Think about it - if you were shooting a 4:1 ratio, you could shoot a master shot in one take, a medium shot in one take, a closeup in one take, and the reverse in one take -- and that's it. You're out of film. Move on to the next setup because you're done. If somebody blew their line, too bad -- you're on a budget and you've got to get on to the next scene.

Video shooters, first making the move to film, are going to find this incredibly restrictive. But it's also going to instill a whole level of discipline in them that they've never had to face before, and because of that, it could be the best thing to ever happen to them. There's a saying in video, "tape is cheap", meaning, keep shooting until you get it right. I hate that. Because while tape is cheap, TIME isn't! If you're screwing around with take 30 or take 35, you've wasted sooooo much time! If you're paying actors and crew and locations and you're renting equipment, your burn rate might be $1,000 per hour or more... what on earth are you doing going through 30 takes of a scene!?!? Rehearse the scene, get it right, and then set up the camera and roll. Get it right within three takes and then move on. Time is money.

Anyway, back to the question -- what's a reasonable ratio? 12:1 is a pretty exorbitant ratio, IMO. If you're shooting over 12:1, you're probably being quite wasteful and need to tighten up your ship. 6:1 is extremely tight. 10:1 is probably reasonable. So on 10:1, on 16mm film, make the math easy -- a 400' roll runs for 11 minutes, so let's use that as a basis, and say that you'll need 9 rolls of film to end up with a 10-minute film, shot at a 10:1 ratio. So buy 9 rolls of film, get 'em processed and transferred to video, and edit on video.

Processing and transfer are extremely variable costs. You can (or at least used to be able to) find processing for a dime a foot, although it's a lot easier to find it at 15 cents a foot or so. So for each 400' roll, count on $60 for processing. Then transfer, that's the biggie -- you can get it slapped over to video on a cheapo old Rank for $175/hour, or you can get a luxurious wonderful transfer on a Spirit Datacine for maybe $900/hour. And that's $900 per hour of suite time, not of runtime, so if you do extensive color correction and grading in the telecine suite (which is far and away the best place to do it) you might spend several hours, usually at least 3:1 minimum, and maybe up to 10:1 depending on how much fiddling you do with the image.

So a cheap transfer might be a one-light, where you shot color bars at the head of the roll and they dial in the CC so that it makes the bars look good, and then they just roll the film off without any further adjustments. Might take two hours to get through 9 rolls, so $350 for transfer. But if you went through the trouble to make a great-looking short, you might want more than just a cheap one-light Rank transfer too.

[Barry_Green]

well unless you do 2k scan instead of 4k scan perhaps...but even 2k is expensive I think!
Don't do a 2k scan, you don't want to end up with tens of thousands of still frames. Do a telecine, where they transfer it to videotape or direct to quicktime files on a hard disk.

[Joe Walker]

Not trying to derail this thread but Barry, what serial number is that GSMO? I sold mine on Ebay back in '04 to Kevin Austin and I believe he converted his to Ultra 16 so I'm just curious if by some strange coincidence you now have my old GSMO. Does your have the T shaped carry handle that protrudes to the side instead of towards the front?

[Homunculus]

thanks alot for explanation ....hmm so 10;1 ratio is roughly standard to aim for then? a bit more than I thought but still doable at that price.

I mean I know James Cameron shot over 35 hours of film for Titanic....Titanic is what aruond 3 hours long? So Cameron shot roughly a 10:1 ratio so your analysis seems spot on

[Barry_Green]

Not trying to derail this thread but Barry, what serial number is that GSMO? I sold mine on Ebay back in '04 to Kevin Austin and I believe he converted his to Ultra 16 so I'm just curious if by some strange coincidence you now have my old GSMO. Does your have the T shaped carry handle that protrudes to the side instead of towards the front?

No, it's not that one, but I did snag his Nikon->CP adapter! :thumbsup:

[Homunculus]

Barry what do you have all this stuff for do you direct produce edit write DP what? I mean what do you do with all these film cams and stuff you collect, 16mm, 35mm etc. Did you shoot anything on it yet?

[dop16mm]

Some of the prices on eBay are insane right now and it is a shame. I agree that shooting a project on film does teach you a level of discipline that you can't duplicate with video. I would love to have the extra cash to buy up some of the 16mm stuff just to give it a good home. Just over $1000 for a cp GSMO, with ultra16 conversion already done, wow! I've seen Arri 16s with 3 primes for like $700, not sync but a beautiful camera.


Film will keep indefinitely in the freezer, I have a couple of cases of reversal from 1974 that I got from the previous owner of my camera. In 1997 it was already 23, and turned out fine when I shot a test. Now that its almost 40 I'd have to test it again before committing the whole 8000' to a project. The problem is finding a specialty lab that won't charge a fortune to do it.
I'm hoping to use it for a film set in the 70's and use that stock to get the look in camera.

It's too bad that more small boutique transfer houses wouldn't set up with ultra16 support. It would be a way to bring new life to old cameras and lenses that wont support super16, and make film more viable for budget filmmakers.

[Homunculus]

believe me i know what you and barry mean about that. i just shot a project on 5dmkii with a guy who is a poor, inexperienced director and it ran 2 days over schedule as he was taking 30 takes of every single shot it was so annoying and almost had a mutiny on set as even actors couldn't stand it anymore. just becuase he had infinite 'tape' he had no discipline and just took take and take and take 20-30 takes at minimum for EVERY. SINGLE. SHOT. god it was a harrowing experience and made me want to shoot film

[evilken]

thanks alot for explanation ....hmm so 10;1 ratio is roughly standard to aim for then? a bit more than I thought but still doable at that price.

I mean I know James Cameron shot over 35 hours of film for Titanic....Titanic is what aruond 3 hours long? So Cameron shot roughly a 10:1 ratio so your analysis seems spot on

I can't believe Cameron shot Titanic 10:1. I think I shot between 8:1 and 10:1 for all the stuff I shot on film, even pop promos. Big hollywood features shoot a much higher ratio than 10:1 - the cost of stock/processing/telecine is a small part of the equation when you have $100,000,000 to spend. 10:1 is what the rest of us shoot!

[Homunculus]

I can't believe Cameron shot Titanic 10:1. I think I shot between 8:1 and 10:1 for all the stuff I shot on film, even pop promos. Big hollywood features shoot a much higher ratio than 10:1 - the cost of stock/processing/telecine is a small part of the equation when you have $100,000,000 to spend. 10:1 is what the rest of us shoot!

thanks for the input. yep I've read several sources Cameron shot about 35 hours for titanic so divide that by 3 and some odd hours final length and you get exactly 10:1

[Barry_Green]

Barry what do you have all this stuff for do you direct produce edit write DP what? I mean what do you do with all these film cams and stuff you collect, 16mm, 35mm etc. Did you shoot anything on it yet?
I don't think I have a good answer to that question. :D

Okay, well, part of it is that I've been making films on and off for the last 30 years, so I'm somewhat of a collector. And part is that I just love the aesthetic of film, and working with it. I've had a couple of 35mm MOS cameras, but I eventually sold them off, and actually I sold off a number of my film cameras, but recently I've been getting the film bug and am thinking of shooting more on film. I'm somewhat of a zagger, if everyone in the world is saying "you must do it this way", I'm inclined to go look the other way. A contrarian, as it were. So if everyone's running to a DSLR, it makes me more curious to explore film further.

Prior to the DVX coming out, I shot 90% film. After the DVX came out, that year it shifted to 75% DVX, 25% film, and in the last few years I haven't fired up a film camera at all. I won an Emmy on a spot shot on an Eyemo, so I love film. Mainly the reason I got the CP GSMO was because it had already been converted to Ultra16. Super16 prices are still crazy (and, well, if I'm thinking about it, I do have a Super16 camera stuffed away in the closet somewhere, it's an old Filmo that was converted to S16).

I've had dozens of film cameras, from old magazine-load Kodak 16mm cameras on up to the 35mm silent cams, and man I was tempted to get that BL4... I had a Beaulieu 6008 (still kicking myself for selling that) and a Chinon Pacific 200/8XL, and most of the top-of-the-line Super8 cameras like the Elmo 1012, etc., and I keep shopping on ebay for a Canon 1014XL-S at a reasonable price so I can convert it to Super-Duper-8.

I guess lots of my problem is that ebay exists. Once ebay came out, it became all too easy to find all these crown jewels of the golden era and snatch 'em up. And ebay supports the addiction because once you run out of money, you can put 'em back on ebay and get basically all your money back out of them! Heh.

As for what I do -- I've been a shooter forever, but I don't shoot that much anymore as I spend more of my time writing and producing now, and it's all too easy to find shooters to shoot for me. I used to do tons of editing but that's now David Jimerson of WBS handles editing on most of my projects, or JDanStan edits the projects we shoot together. We're doing a real movie shortly (no more shorts! Sheesh!) and I'll be producing that, and am executive-producing another film for another DVXUser. But I don't get to shoot as much as I'd like, as most of my time nowadays is taken up with either writing, producing, or my work with FlightLine Films (update on that coming soon, perhaps today).

[Homunculus]

man talk about a vicious cycle. you need a 12 step program for that lol

[Homunculus]

step #4 of which is to give all your unused film equipment to me ;-)

[Barry_Green]

Okay, I'll give you my CP16/R. Just send me $750 for shipping, and it's yours.

[Homunculus]

just give me your location I'll drive and pick it up, gas would be much cheaper even if it's cross country ;-)

[Barry_Green]

Ah, I should have clarified -- that's for shipping AND HANDLING. The handling charge is the expensive part.

[Homunculus]

clever bugger

[paulmeyer]

@ Barry

Barry, is this what you're looking for? : http://www.mtfservices.com/home.html?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=19&category_id=2

P

[Barry_Green]

Yeah, but not at that price. I actually ended up ordering one off ebay, so I should be able to use that with my Ciecio7 PL adapter and get it on the GH1.

[dop16mm]

Its hard to buy into 35mm, no matter how cheap the package is, because they usually have no lenses, those have already been sold off to RED users. Also the stock is too expensive to burn on little projects unless you live in Hollywood and can get cheap short ends.

$750 would not be a bad price for barry's CP16/r if it is in decent shape. I have a feeling that 16mm, even standard 16mm will start to make a comeback on small projects, like commercials and music videos. There is whole generation who has never even touched the stock being spoiled by high quality cheap digital, they may get curious. It'll be the super8 of the HD age. If you are careful about how you shoot, you can shoot maybe 30 minutes of 16mm processed and transferred for less than the day's rent on a RED or other digital cinema grade cam. And you get a look and texture that is hard to reproduce, there is never a question that you shot on film.

I took a look at the Cinelicious tests comparing ultra 16 to regular 16 and honestly I couldn't see a difference other than the shot crop, the difference in grain size was not enough to justify only having one transfer house to choose from. Standard 16 has the advantage of being able to adjust the final framing when going from full frame to wide, or to use full 2x anamorphic adapters.

Besides nothing says 'filmmaker' like a big sync camera on a set of wooden sticks, especially the old-school ones with the butterfly mags like CP-16 or arri-16BL. The Problem with eBay though is not truly knowing the condition of the camera. It may be a gem that is cashing out because it's been on a shelf for 15 years and probably will never be used again, or it could be an old grinder that's been passed around like a dirty....

When I was in school my film department got a new Aaton xtr, beautiful, and my class was just the second to use it. Five years later I volunteered to shoot a senior thesis and the poor thing sounded like a coffee grinder. When new It was so quiet I wasn't always sure it was running. My Eclair NPR is not Aaton quiet, they never were, but much quieter than that one had become.
I was fortune enough to get mine from a retired cameraman, and met him in person, getting the advice and encouragement that comes with that kind of transaction, something that you'll never find on eBay unless you manage to find a local pick-up. But with prices what they are it may be worth taking a chance, you can sometimes find something really good for not much more than that wind-up russian pos used to go for.

[Homunculus]

yeah honestly after seeing Aronofsky's latest offerings (The Wrestler, The Black Swan) I'm hooked on 16mm I love the look and really want to shoot this sucker. Can someone explain difference between 16 and super 16?

[bgundu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_mm_film

[Homunculus]

thanks not sure why I didn't think of that but I will read up.

[Homunculus]

ouch ...


"The Academy Award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award) winner for Best Picture, The Hurt Locker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hurt_Locker) was shot using Aaton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaton) Super 16mm cameras and Fujifilm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujifilm) 16mm film stocks. The cost savings over 35mm allowed the production to utilize multiple cameras for many shots, exposing over 1,000,000' of film."


1 million feet of film... are my calculations off or is that well over 500 hours worth of film

[Homunculus]

which by the way would put the shooting ratio at about 250:1

[evilken]

I loved the Aatons. The 'cat on a shoulder' mount actually worked for me. My regular DOP on the other hand is 6"4' So he wasn't too happy about it. As a 5D user I lust after the ARRI kit (baseplate, FF, Matte Box etc) but if Aaton started knocking out some gear I'd be first in line. I'm worried now that someone will send a link and I'll have to buy it using money I should have spent on renovating my house so we actually have a bedroom.

[Barry_Green]

462 hours. 16mm film runs at a rate of 36 feet per minute, so divide that million feet by 36, and that's how many minutes they shot.

[Homunculus]

462 hours. 16mm film runs at a rate of 36 feet per minute, so divide that million feet by 36, and that's how many minutes they shot.

if my calculations are correct that's roughly $180,000 on purchase of film stock alone.

[Julienmassie]

I dont know, did you ever dust your film in post-production ?
I will never dust film again ... after a couple of featured film I will go digital just for that !

After 6 month of dusting you see dust everywhere and it ruins your life and change the way you see film forever.
your like OMG its obvious its FULL of dust !!!!
and thats when your girlfriend say

- Shut up ! I dont care and dont see it your becoming crazy !

[Thomas Kist]

Barry Ackroyd shot a lot of scenes on The Hurtlocker with three cameras at the same time.
did wonders for the performances.
That triples your film stock.
But on a multi-million dollar production $200.000 for stock is peanuts.

[Barry_Green]

Okay, back to the original poster's question... will the Zeiss 10-100 work on the AF100?

I got a PL mount for my GH1 and the forthcoming AF100, and I already had a couple of Zeiss 10-100s, one in CP mount, one in Arri Bayonet. So I ordered an Arri Bayonet->PL adapter, and that showed up today. Bolted the Bayonet->PL adapter on the lens, and the PL->m43 adapter on the AF100, and the results look... kinda bad-ass...
25041 (http://dvxuser.com/barry/AF100-w-Zeiss-10-100.jpg)

However, as predicted, it's not usable. There's massive vignetting. The AF100's sensor is just way too huge.
25042

So, no go. However, on a GH2 with the extended telephoto crop, I think it would work.

[bgundu]

Hey Barry, is this the updated af100 body?



Okay, back to the original poster's question... will the Zeiss 10-100 work on the AF100?

I got a PL mount for my GH1 and the forthcoming AF100, and I already had a couple of Zeiss 10-100s, one in CP mount, one in Arri Bayonet. So I ordered an Arri Bayonet->PL adapter, and that showed up today. Bolted the Bayonet->PL adapter on the lens, and the PL->m43 adapter on the AF100, and the results look... kinda bad-ass...
25041 (http://dvxuser.com/barry/AF100-w-Zeiss-10-100.jpg)

However, as predicted, it's not usable. There's massive vignetting. The AF100's sensor is just way too huge.
25042

So, no go. However, on a GH2 with the extended telephoto crop, I think it would work.

[Barry_Green]

Well, yes, it's updated from the original model. Don't know if it's representative of what the final will look like.

[benniles]

Barry who makes the pl mount you are using?

[iknuhp]

Barry,

Can you post a picture of the bottom of the camera?

[Barry_Green]

Barry who makes the pl mount you are using?
That's from ebay seller Ciecio7.

[Barry_Green]

Barry,

Can you post a picture of the bottom of the camera?
Um, yes, but I'd have to dismantle it. There's nothing down there but a 3/8" tripod socket, a 1/4", and a positioning hole...

[Homunculus]

Okay, back to the original poster's question... will the Zeiss 10-100 work on the AF100?

I got a PL mount for my GH1 and the forthcoming AF100, and I already had a couple of Zeiss 10-100s, one in CP mount, one in Arri Bayonet. So I ordered an Arri Bayonet->PL adapter, and that showed up today. Bolted the Bayonet->PL adapter on the lens, and the PL->m43 adapter on the AF100, and the results look... kinda bad-ass...
25041 (http://dvxuser.com/barry/AF100-w-Zeiss-10-100.jpg)

However, as predicted, it's not usable. There's massive vignetting. The AF100's sensor is just way too huge.
25042

So, no go. However, on a GH2 with the extended telephoto crop, I think it would work.

is that a grammaphone lol

[Homunculus]

hmm wow that new body something about it looks better. like old one looked like it was made of cheap plastic this looks sturdier and more pro

[look696]

sorry if this is a dumb question, but what sort of rails are the ones you mounted, Barry?

[bgundu]

Looks like the Redrock to me.


sorry if this is a dumb question, but what sort of rails are the ones you mounted, Barry?

[Barry_Green]

hmm wow that new body something about it looks better. like old one looked like it was made of cheap plastic this looks sturdier and more pro

That's because the old one was a handcrafted thing. This looks more like it's closer to a production body. It looks much better.

[Barry_Green]

sorry if this is a dumb question, but what sort of rails are the ones you mounted, Barry?

Yep, Redrock. But with a Letus lens support bracket mounted on the front to hold up the PL adapter's foot.

[Steve Kahn]

Along these lines, Barry, if you could put together a sort of Barry approved or recommended - not recommended - gear list that would be really great. There are tons of options out there and it's hard to know if say it's worth it to spend an extra chunk of cash on a certain follow focus and whatnot.

For example I was going to buy this tripod (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/683563-REG/Manfrotto_504HD_546BK_504HD_Head_w_546B_2_Stage.ht ml) but then saw you mention this one (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/619404-REG/Manfrotto_501HDV_547BK_501HDV_547BK_Video_Tripod.h tml) which is like half the price. That was really helpful.

[Barry_Green]

Well, to some degree, like everything, "it depends". But here's what I can say now:

For memory cards, don't screw around with goofy off-brands or ebay buys. Get genuine cards from the best manufacturers. I recommend Sandisk Extreme, Lexar Gold, and Panasonic Gold. Don't use anything else or you'll end up kicking yourself. And don't go getting some Sandisks at half price off ebay, because they may very well be counterfeit. Go with the real deal, buy them at authorized dealers, and don't worry that they cost an extra $20. So what? This is your footage, people, you need the best you can get.

For lenses, I think the 14-140 is nearly a must-have, for the capabilities and flexibility it gives the camera. I have a complete set of Zeiss ZF manual lenses, and a complete set of Compact Primes for cinema shooting, but that 14-140 gets used all the time. It turns the AF100 into not a digital cinema camera, but a regular video camera. The 14-140 lens is sharp, clear, has a great zoom range, is parfocal (meaning it holds focus throughout the zoom, something that's not all that common on SLR lenses), it communicates electronically with the camera body so that auto-iris and manual iris setting works electronically, it has OIS (mandatory with such a long zoom range), it has chromatic aberration compensation and barrel distortion correction when used on a Panasonic m43 camera, it is the only lens that does silent video-style autofocus, and it's integrated with the camera so that the camera's display of zoom setting and focus distance are accurate and properly displayed. It's a pretty perfect match. Yes it's slow at f4, but all the other benefits make it worth it.

In fact, based on my experience with the 14-140, I just ordered the Lumix 20mm f/1.7 and 7-14 lenses too. They don't have OIS or silent video autofocus, but I expect all the other attributes to work just like the 14-140, and their range and the f-stop of the 20mm make them a good complement to my existing lenses.

For manual lenses, it's really tough to beat the ZFs. They're just awesome. They're not cinema lenses, but you can get them cinema-ized by www.ducloslenses.com (http://www.ducloslenses.com) and they're pretty exquisite. If all you can afford is some used Nikons off ebay, go for those, but if you can stretch for the ZFs, they're sweet. And if you can stretch for genuine cinema lenses, of course those are in a class and world all their own.

For rails, I've actually got three sets here (Letus, Vocas, and Redrock). I prefer the Redrock.

For a mattebox, that depends on what lenses you're using. You can't use a rails-mounted mattebox with the 14-140, as it extends like four inches when you zoom it! You'd need a clip-on for that. So I don't have a solid recommendation there.

For tripod, the standing advice is always to get as much tripod as you can possibly imagine justifying. My minimum-level tripod for an appropriate match for the AF100 would be something like the Cartoni Focus. If you want to do cinema-style moves, you need a good fluid head that's rated for the weight you're going to be putting on it. An AF100 on rails with a CP (no mattebox or follow focus) clocks in at 9 pounds, which is way too close to the 501's limit. The Focus is, I think, rated at 22 pounds, so a 9-pound rig is plenty fine for that. I haven't been tripod shopping in years though, so I don't know what the newest/best bang-for-the-buck tripods are. But don't go cheap on your tripod, if anything the tripod is where you want to be overspending and going to the max on. So, yes, I have a 501 on MDeeVee legs, but I don't use it; that's my tiny emergency backup tripod.

Follow focus - I'm still shopping. I have a Vocas which is nice for video lenses, but doesn't work with cinema lenses. There's the Arri MFF-1 which is a very attractive price for an Arri, and -- heck, it's an Arri. But I'm really intrigued by whatever it is that Redrock is doing with their MicroRemote. It looks delightful. But I've heard mixed reviews on the Redrock follow focus, usually it goes along the lines of that it's far and away the best of the cheap follow focuses, but it's not in the same class as the Arri or Chrosziel units. So I'm waiting to see what they do with the MicroRemote.

And, frankly, you have to keep in mind that everyone's standards are different. Some people may be perfectly happy using a DSLR with a Nikon lens and an IndiFocus, all mounted on a Bogen 501. That's not where I'm coming from. Others may insist that you have to use an Alexa with Master Primes on a top-of-the-line O'Connor tripod. I'm not coming from that range either. I'm looking at stuff in the medium range that would be appropriate for a camera of the AF100's price and capabilities.

[dcloud]

update us how the 20 1.7 (and other m43 lenses) works out on the af100, barry!

[Steve Kahn]

For manual lenses, it's really tough to beat the ZFs. They're just awesome. They're not cinema lenses, but you can get them cinema-ized by www.ducloslenses.com (http://www.ducloslenses.com) and they're pretty exquisite. If all you can afford is some used Nikons off ebay, go for those, but if you can stretch for the ZFs, they're sweet..

Thanks so much!

Have you used a DULCO lens? $250 to "cinimize" a lens seems very inexpensive! I'm getting a Voigtlander M43 25 f0.95 and see that as probably my go to in a lot of cases. Perhaps I'll send it to Dulco???

EDIT: DULCOS is just about 5miles from me! I'll go over and check them out.

[Barry_Green]

Duclos. I bought the ZF set with the intention of having them cinema-ized by Matt Duclos, yes. In the end I never ended up sending them to him, as I decided to buy the CP set instead, but if those don't fit in your budget, I think the Duclos-modified ZF set is the closest you can get to actual cinema lens workability from an SLR lens. Only problem with them at that point, is that the goofy Nikon focus ring works backwards from everything else. You can get a follow focus with a reversing gear to overcome that though.

[Barry_Green]

update us how the 20 1.7 (and other m43 lenses) works out on the af100, barry!
You know it. But I won't have the AF100 much longer and don't know when I might get another, so it might be a little while. I have to send it back before the new lenses even get here. Sigh.

[Homunculus]

i'm glad you're driving up the demand for 14-140mm so much with your rousing appraisals of it as i probably will be forced to sell mine to get th af100 and want to get top dollar ;)

[Barry_Green]

You'll kick yourself for having sold it. :evil: